Friday, 30 June 2017

The Books I Read In June

Fiction'Wintersmith' by Terry Pratchett
This is the third in the Tiffany Aching series of five books by Pratchett, which sees the heroine still training with witches but compelled to move from one to another. In addition, by accident she attracts the attention of anthropomorphic representation of Winter, the eponymous Wintersmith who wants to make her his Queen while nature seems to want her to become Lady Summer. There are fewer laugh out loud moments in this book than the previous ones. However, Pratchett does show that if he had turned to straight rather than humorous fantasy who well he could have done in that genre. He questions assumptions and gives new twists to established patterns. He portrays witches as a kind of social services providers in villages which then reflects on how we support elderly people, those facing bereavement, birth and other challenges in our own society when we live in silos. The Nac Mac Feegles appear but at not really at the heart of the story. It was a satisfying book to read but more on the basis of the story it told rather than the humour.

'Battle Flag' by Bernard Cornwell
This is the third book in the Starbuck tetralogy. In it Cornwell plays to his strengths as the action barely leaves the battlefield. He shows the build-up and the fighting of the Second Battle of Bull Run in western Virginia in August 1862. It continues with some of the characters of the preceding books, but absent from Richmond and with two of the commanders of the Faulconer Legion sent back there, some of the characters are absent. While there is less of the crossing of frontlines which happened far too often in the previous book, 'Copperhead' (1994) you do feel at time that there are far too many consequences and mirrored actions. Confederate Major Nathaniel Starbuck runs into his preacher father who skirts around the Union side throughout even though a civilian and into his friend, Adam Faulconer who similarly deserted his father in going over to the Union side. These twists undermine the realism of the book which is otherwise good. The strengths are in the confusion of this particular battle especially for small units among large armies and portrayal of the fighting. Starbuck's motives have simplified to ambition for progression and simply keeping men he favours alive. The behaviour of others is often bewildering and feels inauthentic, though Cornwell does reproduce errors that were made for real. I have found this series rather unsatisfactory almost as if Cornwell has tried too hard and so undermined the strength seen in the much longer Richard Sharpe series.

Non-Fiction'The Decisive Battles of the Western World 1792-1944' by J.F.C. Fuller; edited by John Terraine
This is the second volume to the book I read last month covering 480BCE to 1757. The problems and strengths of that book continue into this one. The work of Fuller is fragmented by Terraine who does much more than an editor. That becomes even worse in this book as naively and petulantly he counters Fuller's views of the lead-up to the First World War utterly dismissing the economic factors and the involvement of Britain which we know to have been so important. You just wish Terraine would back off and go and write his own book rather than critiquing in such a harsh way the one he was supposed to be editing.

I started reading these two books as a basis for finding 'what if?' points for analysis. Fortunately Fuller does not disappoint in exploring how things could have turned out differently in the cases highlighted by the war. Looking at Napoleon's career 1812-15, he highlights many occasions when something very different could have been done. In terms of the First World War he believes that having the USA entering the conflict in April 1917 not only prolonged the war but also wrecked Germany to an extent that some dictatorship like that of the Nazis was almost made inevitable.

Fuller makes fair points that Hitler made a grave error in not more fully enlisting non-Russians when the Germans invaded the USSR; highlights his unwillingness for units to retreat when victory was no longer feasible and his personal interventions which so weakened many battles. For the Allies, he highlights how the obsession wit unconditional surrender ruined the chance of winning over the whole of Italy in September 1943; undermined those fighting Hitler within Germany and indeed those in Japan who wanted an earlier surrender. He does forget how ambivalent the British were towards the Italians and, above all, even after the war, how long it took politicians to accept that there had even been opposition to Hitler.

In the first volume, Fuller revealed an abhorrence of Calvinism. In this book he and Terraine share a common loathing of Communism. They go on it in hyperbole and at a length which is not appropriate for a history book like this. I suppose this is not surprising given the book was written in the 1950s and Terraine edited in the 1970s. It is rather jarring now. However, it does lead both men to strongly argue for different paths to have been taken that might have prevented Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe. Fuller feels that the Normandy Invasion was a mistake and that the British should have pressed on with an invasion of the Balkans, though from Italy rather than directly. To have a Second Front in France, he feels, simply handed over large parts of Europe to the Soviets. Another striking thing is how Fuller portrays the Soviets as barbarians, constantly emphasising that they had largely Asiatic forces and even leading generals were of that ethnicity. In frankly racist sections, he argues that, as a consequence, their soldiers had low intelligence and were brutal, leaving no explanation why the apparently higher intelligence German soldiers were equally brutal especially on the Eastern Front. Terraine simply amplifies these racist tones.

This is an interesting book, but erratic. It certainly raises interesting counter-factual points that tend to be disregarded in history books these days and I feel put the decisions made at the time to the test. However, it is unrestrained in airing opinions which seem incredibly dated and prejudiced now, and I feel lead to faulty assumptions about what was feasible and the nature of the soldiers in the various conflicts. As before the strongest parts are the descriptions and analyses of the actual battles and the editing that should have been done would have been to eliminate the meandering, often misguided linking sections and to have cut back simply to a series of vignettes about the battles.